|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
107641
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
We thank Brathwaite et al. for starting a very useful debate about what role, if any, coal should play in future energy transitions. Expanding upon their piece, we question that a coal-based economy, in which energy production for both electricity and transport comes from coal, can meet the energy security needs of the United States and other countries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
162347
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Uncertainty in technological learning is a crucial factor in planning research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) strategies. Nevertheless, most previous work either models technological change as deterministic or accounts for uncertainty without fully capturing the recourse feature of the problem. This paper improves upon these approaches by developing a real options-based stochastic dynamic programming method for valuing and planning low-carbon energy RD&D investment and is the first of its kind to disaggregate the effects of R&D and learning-by-doing. This simplified model captures the relevant features of the problem and provides general insights on RD&D strategy under technological uncertainty. Results indicate that imminent deployment, high cost, lower exogenous cost reductions, and lower program funds all promote R&D spending over learning-by-doing, since under these circumstances a breakthrough, rather than slow and consistent cost reductions, will render the program successful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
125462
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Although a potentially useful climate change mitigation tool, carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) efforts in the United States remain mired in demonstration and development. Prior studies suggest numerous reasons for this stagnation. This article empirically assesses those claims. Using an anonymous opinion survey completed by 229 CCS experts, we identified four primary barriers to CCS commercialization: (1) cost and cost recovery, (2) lack of a price signal or financial incentive, (3) long-term liability risks, and (4) lack of a comprehensive regulatory regime. These results give empirical weight to previous studies suggesting that CCS cost (and cost recovery) and liability risks are primary barriers to the technology. However, the need for comprehensive rather than piecemeal CCS regulation represents an emerging concern not previously singled out in the literature. Our results clearly show that the CCS community sees fragmented regulation as one of the most significant barriers to CCS deployment. Specifically, industry is united in its preference for a federal regulatory floor that is subject to state-level administration and sensitive to local conditions. Likewise, CCS experts share broad confidence in the technology's readiness, despite continued calls for commercial-scale demonstration projects before CCS is widely deployed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|